Are windfarms more dangerous than nuclear power?

[Solomwi]

Despite being from the ´eco-camp´, i dont have as many objections to NP as most of my people do, but the major problem i see is the waste-problem. Isnt a lot of the waste suitable for weapons? And is it really a good solution to dig that stuff under, and hope nobody digs it back up within the next 20K years? In germany they want to use a salt-mine for it. I am not a geologist, but a salt-mine? Doesnt salt help corrosion? Doesnt salt tend to rise to the surface (in geological time-frames) - or at least is pretty mobile in the underground? And have all the radiating waste in one place? Seriously, taking responsibility would not be anything like dig it where i cant see it and be gone, but something like building observable building on ground, or just below it and have them guarded and checkep-up properly.

I just want to remind people, though, that uranium is also a limited ressource, which might not even last as long as oil. Wind-energy does not need any fuel. From a sustainablity point of view, wind-power is for both reasons, the waste-problem and the fuel-problem, way superior (in such magintude, like a nuclear sub is superior to a conventional one - to give a pro-NP-metaphor).

(I dont buy the death numbers anyway - 83% of people know, that statistics, esp. in this field, can not be trusted).

It's been a while since I was up to speed on such things, but 10 years ago the unused fuel was nowhere near suitable for weapons (proper nuclear weapons, that is), much less the waste. Given that everybody involved was aware that weapons-grade waste would present a problem even then, I doubt much has changed on that front.

[Unimatrix11]

Well, yeah, i guess, it depends on what you call ´suitable for weapons´ - possibly the person telling me that, meant just ´dirty bombs´ ? I dunno. OTOH, i would think that the material used as fuel (and/or the waste) can be made into WMD-stuff or have byproducts that can be (made) dangerous more easily than conventional fuels. Simply like in: If you run nuclear energy, nuclear weapons are just around the corner, technically (at least, they are a lot further away, if you dont do anything with radioactives at all).

[BeBMan]

Yes. Particularly Dutch windmills. They're vicious suckers. They hide in corners. You're walking down the street, or skating on the levee, or whatnot, and all of a sudden, BAM!, a windmill hits you right in the kisser.

As for the OP, it's IMO apples and oranges, since windmills usually don't come with the same amount of security stuff. Put large containment domes over windmills, base SAM batteries nearby in case of a terror attack and depose all the evil wind waste in some expensive bunker-like stores, and windmills are as safe as any first class nuclear reactor

[Unimatrix11]

To put windmills in large containment domes is a bushy idea !

How about underground solar plants ?

[Solomwi]

Well, yeah, i guess, it depends on what you call ´suitable for weapons´ - possibly the person telling me that, meant just ´dirty bombs´ ? I dunno. OTOH, i would think that the material used as fuel (and/or the waste) can be made into WMD-stuff or have byproducts that can be (made) dangerous more easily than conventional fuels. Simply like in: If you run nuclear energy, nuclear weapons are just around the corner, technically (at least, they are a lot further away, if you dont do anything with radioactives at all).

Yeah, I suspect any-radioactive-material-will-do dirty bombs are a different story, but I've never seen anything to make me think of a dirty bomb as a WMD. Where nuclear energy helps bring on nuclear weapons is in cover (for importing/developing the necessities) and infrastructure, so while there's a nugget of truth in your last sentence, "right around the corner" is probably quite an overstatement.

[BeBMan]

Also re deaths there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak#Serious_accident_in_1957

I'm not absolutely against nuclear power, but selling it as low-risk does IMO make no sense. The amount of security efforts going into it is precisely there cuz it is a high risk technology.

[Traianvs]

Wiki says cancer cases but didn't say how many people died. That's also an estimate not a hard figure.

Tattila's right, an estimated 4k died due to cancer. Some figures are much higher, but those 4000 extra dead are certain. Other figures are just speculation.

[Traianvs]

It´s nocular, Snoopy. Nocular.

Noob, it's nukyular. Even Bush sez so, and he's a former prez!

[Lancer]

The US is a nuclear power, Holland is into wind power. Lets fight and find out which is more dangerous.

[Dauphin]

Wind Turbine Damaged

DAMAGE to a Lincolnshire wind farm turbine may not have been caused by aliens, experts claimed last night.

Police insist the most likely explanation for the damage to the 300-ft turbine is a high speed crash involving an extra-terrestrial spacecraft.

One of the blades was badly dented and another disappeared, as is often the case in alien-windfarm collisions.

Inspector Tom Logan said: "What seems to have happened is an alien being has travelled millions of light years across space from a planet we have never heard of, using technology we can only dream about, and then collided with a windfarm in Conisholme.

"I've said it before - these alien craft are designed for high-speed intergalactic travel. They do not handle well in the Earth's atmosphere, mainly due to our fluctuating magnetic fields.

"The aliens need to slow down or preferably use a different mode of transport once they arrive on Earth. There's an excellent bus service between Mablethorpe and Market Rasen."

Although police consider aliens the most likely explanation they are not ruling out other lines of enquiry, including giant wasps or a massive urang utan.

Local villagers have also reported gangs of angry voles with ladders, while nearby farmyards are being checked for cow catapults.

However, Julian Cook, professor of physics at Cambridge University, said: "How many times do we have to tell you? Do not talk to people from Lincolnshire."

[Victor Galis]

Even if those figures are accurate, it's a very predictable reaction. People are much more afraid of flying than driving even though it's much safer per passenger-mile. We fear spectacular deaths more than ordinary ones.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Each Nuclear power plant has a low probability of a high fatality event, Each windmill has a low probability of a low fatality event. The disparity in probabilities and the size of them means that the only way to make a meaningful comparison is on amortization models of deaths per year per plant or per MH/h.

But a fair comparison isn't really possible, Nuclear powers accidents (especially for the newer types which would actually be built today) can only be estimated ware as windmills are numerous enough that we can gather real data and be confident that those numbers are stable and not going to vary due to the averaging of huge numbers of windmills.

On top of that we must consider the damage in monetary terms that accidents can cause, windmills can cause virtually no damage ware as a nuclear accident could do massive damage. Again amortization is appropriate here and a real apples to apples comparison isn't possible but it is possible that nuclear could be less fatal or less damaging in some peoples estimates, but these will always be just estimates.

But the real nail in the coffin for nuclear power is that nuclear power is MORE EXPENSIVE then wind power and has been for years now, thats why people are building windmills like crazy now, if wind was not intermittent it would be the only form of power. But because some form of base load power like nuclear is necessary its only meaningful to compare nuclear to other base load type forms of power generation such as fossil fuel, hydro and geothermal. Within that smaller choice set nuclear dose look like a good choice because its clearly better then all the fossil fuels, geothermal isn't ready for massive scale yet and hydro capacity is largely tapped out. Once concentrated solar-thermal with storage is perfected it will be the preferred base load power source.

[Thue]

The biggest problem with wind power is that the wind is so unpredictable. So when you create 1MW of wind power you also have to have a coal/nuclear/gas power plant standing by beside it to generate power when the wind doesn't blow.

[MikeH]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406

So, 100,000 deaths of cancers after chernobyl. Equivalent to 2000 years of windmills.

[SpencerH]

Wind Turbine Damaged